Content deleted Content added
moved to "1_E21_kg" |
Bobblehead (talk | contribs) →UCC additions by MPS: format fix and correction. |
||
Line 1:
{{skiptotoctalk}}
{{talkpageheader}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 8
|algo = old(10d)
|archive = Talk:Barack Obama/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=August 5, 2004
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barack Obama
|action1result=Promoted
|action1oldid=5297601
|maindate=August 18, 2004
|action2=FAR
|action2date=09:53, 23 January 2007
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama/archive1
|action2result=pass
|action2oldid=102622704
|currentstatus=FA
}}
{{blp}}
{{WPCD-People|class=start}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
|1={{WPBiography|class=FA|priority=high|activepol=yes|politician-work-group=yes}}
|2={{Project Congress|importance=high}}
|3={{WikiProject Illinois|class=FA}}
|4={{WikiProject Hawaii|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
|5={{Talk Spoken Wikipedia|Barack_Obama_1-31-2007.ogg}}
|6={{ChicagoWikiProject|class=FA|importance=top}}
|7={{FAOL|Finnish|fi:Barack Obama}}
|8={{WikiProject Columbia University}}
}}
{| class="messagebox" style="background: AntiqueWhite;
|-
|This talk page is '''automatically archived''' by [[User:MiszaBot I|MiszaBot I]]. Any sections older than '''10''' days are automatically archived.
|-
|}
{{talkbottom}}
{{archive box|auto=yes}}
__TOC__
== More Rezko ==
Is this AP story [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070611/ap_on_el_pr/obama_donor] worthy of inclusion, or will his link to Tony Rezko be suppressed further to keep his squeaky clean image? [[User:I'mDown|Manic Hispanic]] 01:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The Obama wikipedia article is highly POV and there is no basis for eliminating talk that is adverse to Obama. Unless this wikipedia article becomes more balanced it is subject to POV tagging. [[User:Decoratrix|Decoratrix]] 14:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:Eliminating talk? Are you talking about the talk page archival system? It's pretty standard for wikipedia articles. Instead of coming to this page, presumably looking to start a fight, it might be better to outline in specific details what you think might be appropriate changes to the article. Or, even better, writeup a section and look for compromise in it's inclusion. Just tagging an article as pov and then complaining about it as pov, won't get you very far in your goals. Just something to think about. [[User:Turtlescrubber|Turtlescrubber]] 21:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::Turtlescrubber, you blanked this entire section of the talk page until i restored it. This is not archiving. My request is to cease deleting talk sections. As far as working on the article, i have tried that four times only to have my work deleted (not edited}. It is clear that several editors have a very aggressive agenda of keeping this article sanitized, ie free of any information that casts a bad light on obama. [[User:Decoratrix|Decoratrix]] 04:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Yes, I blanked a clearly aggressive and inflammatory talk page entry. You can't enter into a discussion when you call everyone on the talk page pov obama hawks in your opening title and then accuse all the editors on the page of suppressing information. I tried to explain how to properly use a talk page (see above) but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. It's counterproductive to reaching any kind of consensus when using unneeded vitriol towards your fellow editors. I was just trying to help out and bring the level of discourse to that of normal people. I obviously failed. Good luck. [[User:Turtlescrubber|Turtlescrubber]] 04:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Thanks Turtlescrubber for toning down your hostility. However, please read the remarks of each editor. I did not introduce the term "Obama Hawks"; in fact, i was the one who altered and deleted that title once. The question is yet unanswered as to why this article cannot become balanced and not devoid of facts harmful to obama's candidacy. It's obvious one or more WP:SPA pro-obama editors have made this wikipedia article a full time job. [[User:Decoratrix|Decoratrix]] 14:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
This story is only being published because it sells newspapers. The entire issue is absent any real scandal or controversy and is non-notable. [[User:Johnpseudo|'''johnpseudo''']] 16:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
:The Rezko controversy, including its conclusion (that '''nothing improper whatsoever''' took place), is already covered in the article. That you wish to give it [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] is your problem. [[User:Italiavivi|Italiavivi]] 21:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
.
:Please cease the ad homonem remarks italiavivi. It is your POV as to what constitutes "undue weight". A neutral observer would be very interested in the details of the Rezko transaction, and let the readers decide what it all means. Readers i think would also be interested in the details of obama's being born muslim and attending mosque and the muslim school. these are merely facts not anyone's POV. But if the cartel wishes to censor all this info, then the article is clearly POV. [[User:Decoratrix|Decoratrix]] 04:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::You're confused, Decoratrix. Undue weight is determined by Wikipedia's [[WP:NPOV|NPOV]] policy. That aside, you're heading into [[WP:TROLL|troll]] territory with the "cartel" rhetoric. [[User:Italiavivi|Italiavivi]] 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Cease the uncivil remarks italiavivi and stick to the issues, please. People editing this article obviously have differing opinions as to what constitutes "undue weight". It appears to me that there is undue weight given to the "squeaky clean" image of obama and not a balancing weight on the scandals and religious origins of obama. There is certainly no need to suppress Rezko ties, of which there are many. Wikipedia is not a forum to promote obama's candidacy. our readers are entitled to read the facts--all of them. [[User:Decoratrix|Decoratrix]] 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok whatevers, but do not censer my comments. Wikipedia is not censored! [[User:I'mDown|Manic Hispanic]] 01:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:Wikipedia is also not used for agenda-pushing. [[User:Italiavivi|Italiavivi]] 21:26, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
::Decoratrix, your comments here make it clear that you are the one with the strong POV. Attacking the editors and introducing false information here (e.g., he was not "born Muslim" as you say above) and continuing to insist that such things be included in the article when they have been discussed many, many times and determined to be worthy of the weight we've given them, is indicative of agenda-pushing - yours. And I, for one, am really tired of hearing about being pro-Obama. As I've said before, I've also been accused of being on John Edwards and Hillary's staffs. (Actually, I'm Howard Dean. Who are you?) Oh - and by the way, the expression is "ad hominem" and words like "cartel" and "censor" and "aggressive agenda of keeping this article sanitized" and your comment about editors making this article a "full time job" are the ad hominem attacks, not Italiavivi's pointing out that WP:UNDUE might apply here. Italiavivi's comments in this section are well within the realm of acceptable. Several of yours are not. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 22:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
:::Tvoz, try to keep cool please. Do we have a different understanding of the culture of Indonesia? It is my understanding that to be born of a Muslim father in Indonesia is to be born Muslim. [[User:Decoratrix|Decoratrix]] 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Tvoz's comments were perfectly "cool," and you know this. You're avoiding her arguments by portraying her as emotional, a very transparent (and pathetic, and arguably sexist) tactic. [[User:Italiavivi|Italiavivi]] 02:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::(1) I'm not going to dignify that "keep cool" with a response. (2) "It is my understanding that to be born of a Muslim father in Indonesia is to be born Muslim." Huh? <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 03:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::Decoratrix, perhaps you should actually read this article? Particularly the part that says that Obama was born in [[Honolulu, Hawaii]]. Then you should continue to read to the part where Obama didn't go to Indonesia until he was 6. If you are going to argue a point, it is generally helpful to actually know what you're talking about. Thanks for playing. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 06:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
== Image ==
This picture looks horrendous, where is the original image? (the pic of him standing with the capitol background) [[User:Wooyi|Wooyi]]<sup>[[User talk:Wooyi|Talk to me?]]</sup> 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
:The one with him standing in front of the [[United States Capitol|capitol building]] was removed because the photographer claimed ownership and the Obama senate staff confirmed ownership. Therefore Wikipedia could not use the image. If you can find a better free image of Obama, feel free to add it. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 18:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
== I've added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule ==
I've added a Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards Based on Polling Data and DNC's 15% Threshold Rule [[Image:2008 Demo.jpg|thumb|Pie Chart Showing the Number of Delegates that Clinton, Obama and Edwards would earn Based on Polling Data in all States (states without polling data are counted as "Undecided") if the Democratic National Convention were held today in accordance with the DNC's 15% Threshold Rule (click to enlarge).]]--[[User:Rpilaud|Rpilaud]] 21:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
== Maybe insert "It was a Roman Catholic school" ==
from the "Obama madrassa myth debunked" link into the actual text of footnote 14. Many people won't go into all the links, and many others need a "see Jane run" simplicity.
[[User:Lenngray|Lenngray]] 16:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
== I removed the book cover ==
I have removed the image of ''The Audacity of Hope'' book cover from this article; the only mention is "''The first, ''[[The Audacity of Hope]]'', was published in October 2006. An Italian translation was published in April 2007, and a Spanish translation will be published in June 2007. It has remained on the [[New York Times Best Seller list]] for the 30 weeks since publication.''" While it identifies the book, it adds no significant content to the article that words could not alone. Note that my statements are not impugning the article's editors, but I strongly feel that the use of the image is not a fair use but is instead simple copyright infringement. --[[User talk:Iamunknown|Iamunknown]] 07:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:It's also clear to me that this book cover, while perhaps nice to have here, does not meet agreed standards for use of [[Wikipedia:Non-free content|non-free]] images on Wikipedia. Policing fair use is a thankless, but necessary job, and I think Iamunknown's contribution deserves (at minimum) some kind of counterpoint. I've also requested comment at [[WP:FUR#20 June 2007|Wikipedia:Fair use review]]. --[[User:HailFire|HailFire]] 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
::My counter-point was very simple, stated in the edit summary: I agree with [[User:Tvoz]]'s rationale as provided on the image's page. Where is the line drawn with regard to authors? [[User:Italiavivi|Italiavivi]] 21:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
:::In the real world this would certainly be accepted as fair use. I think the Wikipedia policy is out of control and excessively restrictive, which is a frequent problem here (e.g., the you tube hysteria of some months ago). This is a good example of an the appropriate use of an image to illustrate a section - it is not gratuitous. Common sense and the real world ought to hold some sway in the formulation of Wikipedia policy. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::::Take this up on the policy talkpage, then. Until the policy is changed, the image cannot be used in this way. [[user:Nadav1|nadav]] <small>([[user talk:Nadav1|talk]])</small> 12:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Text added giving critical commentary and political significance. [[WP:FUR]] now seem happy. [[User:Jheald|Jheald]] 23:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
== A new UCC paragraph? ==
I consider a new paragraph on the UCC to be undue weight in Sen. Obama's article. It is already covered adequately. [[User:Italiavivi|Italiavivi]] 20:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:I agree. I just tried to remove the new UCC paragraph, but looks like BobbleHead beat me to it. [[User:Bjewiki|Bjewiki]] 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
== UCC additions by MPS ==
Since I've reverted {{user|MPS}}'s additions twice now, what is everyone's opinion on the additions?
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=139708696&oldid=139509103 First addition]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=139734838&oldid=139711132 Second addition]
I'm of the opinion that Obama's religion is adequately covered in the article and that MPS's additions are a little excessive and are not overly notable in the general scheme of things. Particularly in regards to the amount of space that the additions take up in the article. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 20:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:As stated in the talk topic directly above, I agree that the additions were given undue weight in the article. There was very little notable about the additions that {{user|MPS}} was putting in. [[User:Bjewiki|Bjewiki]] 20:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:: ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=139734838&oldid=139711132 Third Addition]) Sorry I didn't see the talk here. I think it is notable to discuss the fact that Obama's relationship to his faith is more than "personal belief." He is actively stumping at UCC conference and National events, not as a political speeches but as a '''member''' of the UCC. In return, the denomination has featured him with a cover story and exclusive interview on the cover of their national publication... the '''president of the denomination''' has called him one of the most exciting politicians out there. Obama is not some milquetoast churchgoing politician; he wears his UCC faith on his sleeve -- this is definitive [[alliance]] with the UCC. Given his propensity to express faith in his political speeches, and given recent media attention on Obama's beliefs, we need to add weight here, or at least create a [[Religious beliefs of Barack Obama]] side article. [[User:MPS|MPS]] 20:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::I would counter that Bush wears his faith on his sleeve too, and has the propensity to express faith in his speechs. Checking Bush's page, here's what I found out about his religion: "Bush left his family's Episcopal Church to join his wife's United Methodist Church." [[User:Bjewiki|Bjewiki]] 21:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::: I would counter-counter that there are many many side articles in [[:Category:George W. Bush]] and among them several articles that discuss George W. Bush's religious beliefs to include [[White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives]], [[Compassionate conservatism]], and [[George W. Bush substance abuse controversy]]. Did the [[The Episcopal Church|Epsicopalians]] or [[United Methodist]]s ever formally invite Bush to speak at their gatherings? Look at how many articles there are in [[:Category:Barack Obama]]. None. Besides, the [[Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2008#Religious_beliefs|Mitt Romney article]] has a section on his religious beliefs. [[User:MPS|MPS]] 21:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::Romney's situation is entirely different. The Latter-Day Saint movement is notably controversial, especially in the United States. Many of Romney's Republican opponents have made comments about Romney's Mormonism, a situation which is in no way paralleled by Sen. Obama's church. You [[User:MPS#Same_sex_marriage_related_materials|seem to have a strong POV concerning the United Church of Christ]], and I would ask that you take [[WP:CONSENSUS]] into more consideration when editing articles related to your pet project. [[User:Italiavivi|Italiavivi]] 21:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::To the contrary, Obama's religious beliefs have been quite the subject of his opponents. [http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm Hillary has accused him of madrassa education] [http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/barack-obama/ The Washington Pst Says Obama's religion is "United church of Christ"] and [http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010012 Sean Hannity calls Obama's church cult-like and 'scary doctrine']. What more can I say here? I know a lot about the UCC... you know nothing about my POV. [[User:MPS|MPS]] 21:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::I know that you post about your UCC POV on your User page, and that you just linked the false (and thoroughly debunked) Insight Magazine/Fox News "madrassa" smear. I don't need much more to go on having seen you link that, actually. [[User:Italiavivi|Italiavivi]] 22:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
:::::::: You know nothing about my POV. Statements on my personal page are intended to communicate and amplify wikipedia [[wikipedia:WikiLove]] and [[wikipedia:NPOV]]. I agree that "allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a 'madrassa' are not accurate," and I think we can find [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/ sources] that say this. I don't know what you ''need'', but if the madrassa controversy was ''thoroughly'' debunked, that would indicate that the issue was "notably controversial, especially in the United States." [[User:MPS|MPS]] 17:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
:This is a biography of the man, not a [[WP:COATRACK|coatrack]] about the UCC. His religious beliefs are an important topic, but they are already covered adequately - the article doesn't need a giant section about his [[Wikipedia:Recentism|recent]] church activities. --[[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 22:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
::: I agreewith you that this is an important topic... I disagree with you that it is covered adequately. What about a [[Religious beliefs of Barack Obama]] article. [[User:MPS|MPS]] 17:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::I agree with Bobblehead and Italiavivi on this. <strong>[[User:Tvoz|Tvoz]] </strong>|<small>[[User talk:Tvoz|talk]]</small> 02:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::: Hot off the [http://www.ucc.org/news/aide-obamas-synod-speech.html presses at UC News] ... "''Joshua DuBois, the Obama campaign's director of religious affairs, said the senator's Synod speech on Saturday will be his first major address on faith and politics as a presidential candidate. ''" ... please tell me again why Obama's Speech to GS26 is not notable? [[User:MPS|MPS]] 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::::My first guess is because the only sources pimping his speech at this time are faith based organizations that have a vested interest in advertising his speech. Nothing against faith based sources, but Wikipedia is not in the business of advertising Obama's campaign stops. If his speech turns out to be as important as the campaign's director for religious affairs says it is, then a small entry can be made in the campaign article regarding the content of his speech and responses to the content. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 18:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::::: Ok, but other publications are "pimping" this speech such as the [http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/06/22/america/NA-POL-US-Obama-Religion.php International Heral Tribune], [http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-obama-religion,1,2180463.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines LA Times], and non-UCC [http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/182121.aspx Christian] site referred to by the [http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/2008-obama-edwards-on-government-reforms/ NYT blog]. This [http://www.messengernews.net/News/articles.asp?articleID=10487 non-UCC reference] reports on the Iowa Speech. What's your standard? I have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=139734838&oldid=139711132] already tried to add content that includes non-UCC affiliated [[American Spectator]] comments on this long-advertised speech but I imagine you will want to wait until after the speech to gather the most lasting comments and criticism. I still don't see why we shouldn't make a side article on his religious beliefs. [[User:MPS|MPS]] 20:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>points you to the [[Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008|campaign article]]* If you feel his speaking at the UCC conference is notable at this point, the campaign article may be appropriate, but not the main article and not in the manner in which you've been trying to add it. From what I've found and been pointed to by you, at this point it might (emphasis on might) warrant a sentence or two along the lines of "In an attempt to reach out to voters of faith, Obama addressed the Iowa conference and [[General Synod]] for his [[religious denomination]], [[United Church of Christ]]." As for the religious beliefs article.. If you can find enough information from reliable sources on his religious beliefs that differ from his church and isn't already covered in that article or the [[Political views of Barack Obama]], then go crazy. --[[User:Bobblehead|Bobblehead]] <sup>[[User talk:Bobblehead|(rants)]]</sup> 21:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
| |||